sops_rekey

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the mutation's security consequence ('changes who can read the file'), the auth prerequisite ('Requires a private key for that domain'), and the non-inferable nature of 'domain'. It omits return format and whether prior ciphertext remains valid, so it is not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by when-to-use and prerequisites. Slight redundancy with the domain parameter description, but no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, security impact, and prerequisites. The only gap is what the call returns (e.g., new encrypted content vs. a status), which an agent might want given the absence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces why 'domain' must be explicit and points to sops_list_domains for options, but that same guidance already lives in the schema's property description, so it adds little beyond the structured field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource+mechanism: 'Re-encrypt a SOPS file onto the current recipient list of the named domain.' It also names the side effect (updating the recorded domain), which differentiates it from sibling mutation tools like sops_rotate_generated or sops_add_secrets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear trigger ('after a domain's recipients change') and a concrete diagnostic condition ('recipients do not match' refusal from the other mutation tools). It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative, but the routing context is strong enough for the agent to pick this tool over its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.